nati
HE BATTALl!
Opinion
al suit fil
Bush prot
N (AP) -
sued the cit,
j on Monday, di-
jmance illegally^ ■
m protesting the* :
;n President Bust
The Battalion
Page 5B • Tuesday, September 9, 2003
>deral lawsuit
^gh of Caddo
Rectenwald of
1in Wallace of
they were thn
3St if they violatr:
Dtest ordinance:,
/lay 3 visit to ther
;aid the ordinanc;
leir First Amen?
,nd the Texas §
ordinance re:.;
e demonstratr :
r a permit 15 te
i and state thefK
larch and the n't
e and kinds of its
be involved, acco:
lawsuit filed *1
r decries
or S87 bill
IINGTON (AF
atic presidential
hn Kerry said M:
ould not Si
nt Bush’s $87:
for Iraq
5tan without a dd
Vhite House ^
ot going to votfi"
ided ticket," Ker
;ociated Press. H.
lould get more ?-
ito Iraq and use:
o help pay for v
i before AmenCc
to foot the bill '■
( United States i
n the Persiar
vide-rangmg W
issachusetts se'p
imocratic rival
a former goven' :;
t, lacks foreign
(The U.S. injustice system
toy ^ ^
> Criminal sentences should differ depending on circumstances of the case
T he definition of injustice would be if
a judge in New York gave one crimi
nal a two-year jail sentence for pos-
fcssion of cocaine, while a judge in Alabama
Huled another person for five years for the
»me crime. Congress passed the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984 to combat this problem.
■he law imposed minimum sentences for cer-
■un crimes as federal guidelines forjudges to
fcllow and created the U.S. Sentencing
Commission to enforce them.
I The commission immediately recognized the need to avoid
snict application of the guideline system. It gave judges the
Bower to adjust sentences if the circumstances of a case war-
ftnted it. However, in April, Congress passed new legislation
Biat gave judges substantially less freedom to deviate from fed-
Brai sentencing guidelines. Since then, the U.S. Justice
De partment, supported by this law, has been tracking all judges
who violate the sentencing rules.
I These new restrictions hurt the American justice system, as
Biey are unjust, unfounded and lead to the intimidation of judges.
I Congress’ revisions, collectively called the Feeney amendment,
nuke it easier for prosecutors to challenge "downward depar-
Bires,” which are sentences set by judges that are shorter than
tnose in the federal guidelines. It also reports these departures to
■ongress.
I To add insult to injury. The Washington Post reported last
ftonth on a memo written by Attorney General John Ashcroft
oi iering federal prosecutors to notify the Justice Department of
all downward departures not requested by the government,
Bcluding the specific districts or judges responsible for them.
I In reply. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused Ashcroft
ol maintaining an "ongoing attack on judicial independence” by
commanding prosecutors “to participate in the establishment of
a blacklist of judges who impose lesser sentences than those
recommended by the guidelines.”
Even the conservative U.S. Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist said the new revisions would “do
serious harm to the basic structure of the sentenc
ing guideline system and would seriously impair
the ability of courts to impose just and responsible
sentences.”
U.S. District Judge John S. Martin, on the bench
for 13 years, left in protest because he felt the
new sentencing system was “unnecessarily cruel
and rigid.” He rightly believes it is impos
sible for the federal guidelines to consider
every factor that helps determine a crimi
nal sentence. Hence, the rules are unjust.
Judges hear individual cases. They know
that not every criminal can be judged with a
black or white mentality of guilty or not guilty.
There are subtleties and nuances in every
case. It is with this discretion that they
rule on a case, and they are the only
ones qualified to make this deci
sion. Justice is given fairly, one
case at a time.
Unlike judges, members of
Congress do not see individuals;
they see only broad classes of
defendants. Nor are they quali
fied to be judges. As politicians,
however, they know that by sup
porting sentencing guidelines, they
will seem tough on crime, and this
takes precedence over justice.
This is apparent when one examines the
federal guidelines.
Congress used the 100-to-l ratio when it
wrote the sentencing guidelines for posses
sion of cocaine. Congressmen believe crack
cocaine to be 100 times more dangerous than powdered
cocaine since crack is associated with greater substance
abuse. So, Congress mandated the same minimum sen
tence — five years — if one was caught with five
grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powder
cocaine.
However, in 1996, the Journal of the American
Medical Association published an extensive study
done by researchers at the University of Minnesota
and Columbia University that compared the effects
of both cocaine forms on humans. It demonstrated
that since the effects of the two were so similar,
there was no justification for believing crack
cocaine to be more dangerous. Still, Congress
enforces this guideline.
These shoddy guidelines should not be taken lightly.
Each sentence imposed through them affects a human life
and, in most cases, the lives of innocent family members
suffer when their relatives are jailed.
The changes especially affect college students, who
have a greater tendency to find themselves in court.
Students would certainly want to plead their case
and plead the judge for a lighter sentence as
opposed to experiencing a mock trial and then
being given a one-size-fits-all sentence.
Stricter enforcement of federal guidelines
deprives judges of the ability to consider all of the
factors that go into formulating a just sentence. This
must never happen. Congress should revoke the
Feeney Amendment and, in doing so, realize that they
are not part of the judicial branch and leave sentencing of
criminals to judges.
Cracie Arenas • THE BATTALION
Midhat Farooqi is a senior
gmetics major.
n
■a post-Se:
demands it.
citizens must reject Proposition 12
o:
11,2003
nee
g Room
ng Cadets
DAVID
SHOEMAKER
.latt ]
dent
1. Wt
and
osefy
lulio Jam
ichold
talking
returning
■inbrance
ticipate.
nter
Wito • William I. Dean • Thonwl ||
nna Debin • Simon Dedvukaj’W' H
aid A.DelapenlwVitoJoiepliDt* •*
Pietra • Palmina Belli GatliTdS 1 «■.
Tins • Francis X. Demin? •Carols,
si. Dennis-Josi Nicholas Depeni'
sperilo • Cindy Ann Deuel • Bow* ’
n • Gerard Dewan • Simon StllelI* ,l »
DiAgostino • Patricia F.DiChiaro^ ]
DiFranco-DonaldJ.DiFranco't^ #
isio-George DiPasquaMosepI )
ano* Michael Diaa-Piedra-In# .
GallettiDiaz-MatthewDiar'W’ *
ihDermot Dickey •Lawrence Pawl .
I• StephenPDimino-WilliainJ. |
f-Jeffrey M. Dingle ■Ramai A. W
• Brendan Dolan • Neil Doly'l* ,
icua Domingo • diaries (Caries)
e) Mark Patrick Dominguez • He* 1 *
i • Stephen Dorf-Thomas DowP
ary Yolanda Dowling • Raymond^
Joseph M. Doyle-Randy Drake 1
i A.Duarte-LukeA.Dudek-
rard Duffy • Michael Joseph Duff)'
Juger • Sareve Dukat • Christoph*
stan • Patrick Thomas Dwyer'M 1
eEagleson-Robert D.Eaton'Her
rmann-Paul Robert Eckna 1
Dennis Michael Edwards •Michad
)• Lisa Egan •Martin Egan‘MicW
: Eggert • Lisa Caren Weinstein £1#
Adam fisenberg-Daphne FEIdf’
Valerie Silver Ellis • Albert Ally#
is Suk-Yuen Eng • Christophers#'
Or-William J.Erwin-SarahlAli)
/ M. Espinoza • Brigette Ann Esp#
silo • William Esposito • RubenEf i ’
•EricBrian Evans-RobertEdwad
varf Catherine K. Fagan •Patrkii 11
imF. Fallon* William Falloft'AntW
in Joseph Fanning •Kathleen pl
y Carole Farley • Elizabeth Ann (Wl
j. Farrell • John W. Farrell •Terrencd# 1
T Farrelly • Syed Abdul Fatha • (hh#
>hannon M. Fava ■ Bernard D.favi®'
illiamFeehan 1 Francis J.(f rank) I#
n Sept. 13, Texans
will vote on 22 pro
posed amendments
to the state constitution, which
• Cover items from highways to
the Veterans Land Board. But
|ne of the most important
propositions on the ballot is
Proposition 12. The short
description of the proposition
• on the ballot describes it as an
; amendment “concerning civil lawsuits against
; doctors and health care providers, and other
• action, authorizing the legislature to determine
? limitations on noneconomic damages.”
I The proposition must be voted down because
• it not only inadequately addresses the reasons
why malpractice insurance costs have risen so
■dramatically, it contains loopholes that will ben-
• jsfit industries other than medical practices.
Although the proposition addresses one of the
■easons why malpractice insurance costs have
i tisen, it does not address other problems, includ-
: ing bad business practices of some insurers.
S I In an article from The Houston Chronicle,
bonald Zuk, the CEO of SCPIE Holdings and
* malpractice insurer, admits the industry failed
* to handle its business properly.
He said, “The insurance industry has not
underwritten properly,” meaning they issued
:■ policies that they would be hard pressed to
'• cover. In the 1990s, according to the article,
such policies were met by using revenues from
high Hying stocks and bonds, not by raising
rates. This left insurers in a serious bind when
the dot com boom ended. It is not fair to hold
Texans responsible for bad planning on the part
of insurance companies.
Another factor that has caused insurance
costs to rise, according to The Houston
Chronicle, is the refusal of judges
to dismiss frivolous claims, rais
ing charges of collusion. In
McAllen, one lawyer was convict
ed of conspiring with the county
clerk to backdate a case so it
would not be stopped by the
statute of limitations. Jon Opelt,
executive director of Citizens
Against Lawsuit Abuse, stated
that lawyers who improperly
solicit cases, or “ambulance
chasers,” are rarely charged with
unlawful solicitation.
Such problems stem from the
poor state of Texas’judicial sys
tem rather than from high jury
awards in malpractice cases.
Because doctors practice their profession in
a high-risk environment, mistakes are bound to
happen but, frequently, the errors made by a
doctor can irrevocably affect someone’s life,
which is why an individual can claim damages
for pain and suffering, or disfigurement, not just
for lost wages.
u
Although doctors
deserve some protec
tion due to the risk
they undertake and
the effort they ex
pend, they cannot be
allowed to escape se
rious damages they
are responsible for.
Proposition 12 would change that, only
allowing recovery of lost wages or other eco
nomic damages. Those who did not hold jobs
at the time of the malpractice could face
reduced recovery for lost wages, which would
harm people such as homemakers, who are not
considered employed.
Although doctors deserve some
protection due to the risk they
undertake and the effort they
expend, they cannot be allowed to
escape serious damages they are
responsible for.
But even more troublesome
than the caps on malpractice
claims of pain and suffering is
section C which allows the
Legislature to then extend these
caps at its discretion, including
to other industries. Because such
high risks are involved in prac
ticing medicine, these caps
might be considered one of sev
eral ways to keep costs down.
But most other industries do not
face such sufficient risks to deserve protection
from noneconomic damages.
The placement of Proposition 12 on the bal
lot appears to be a case where Texas part time
citizen-legislators were ridden over by business
interests and insurers. Businesses, like doctors,
can fall victim to frivolous lawsuits, but that is a
problem of judges not exercising their discre
tion to dismiss suits, not plaintiffs awarded
damages for pain and suffering. Many other
areas that the Legislature could extend this cap
to also lack the high-risk environment that the
medical profession faces.
It would be ludicrous to believe that most
business activities are even remotely as high
risk as the medical profession.
In plain English, this provision allows the
Legislature to extend the noneconomic damage
cap of section C of Proposition 12 to other
areas, regardless of the legal theory of liability,
which would also include negligence cases.
There is no compelling reason to undertake
such action at this time, except to protect the
insurance industry and businesses. The cap on
medical malpractice damages included in
Proposition 12 might be improved upon in form,
but it still does not address the fundamental
issues in the Texas civil courts and also allows
other industries to enjoy the same protection
without the same risks as the medical profession.
The real solution to the problem is to not
bail out insurers from their poor decisions and
to begin appointing judges to the state bench
instead of electing them.
The voters should reject Proposition 12 on
Sept. 13 and force the Legislature to face the true
causes of the rising cost of malpractice insurance.
David Shoemaker is a junior
management major.
Not everyone can
afford cost hikes
Accepting one
lifestyle invites all
In response to a Sept. 8 mail call: in response to a Sept. 8 mail call
I believe Mr. Shilling’s idea that stu
dents should gladly take on more
cost for their education is incorrect.
For those students with endless
financing from their parents or some
type of trust fund, tuition increase is
probably not an important issue. It is
easy to see why students in that posi
tion would share the same opinion.
However, not every student has that
luxury. Many students must provide
for some or all of their educational
costs without any assistance. For
these students, tuition increases may
hinder their ability to attend college.
I believe the people of Texas would
rather see their tax dollars spent on
educating citizens than wasted on
more government social programs
that continue to fail.
Jeremy Gribnau
Class of 2004
The attitude of Mr. Kowalski in his
mail call is frightening. He states the
case of what is right or wrong is not
concrete. This is the attitude growing
in popularity that will lead to the moral
degradation of America.
Kowalski asks whose right is it to
determine right and wrong about how
one chooses to live. If nothing is
wrong no behavior should be pun
ished. Let all the murderers, child
molesters and rapists free, because
that is just how they choose to live their
life. Once alternative lifestyle becomes
mainstream and accepted as normal,
a floodgate opens because every pos
sible alternative lifestyle must then be
recognized as well. It is time that peo
ple stand up for what is right and real
ize there is right and wrong.
Mark Wood
Class of 2003
MAIL CALL
Cays exists outside
Texas A&M campus
In response to a Sept. 5 mail call:
Whether or not you agree or dis
agree with homosexuality does not
make it any less a part of the
American culture and a valid branch
of study at a university. You cannot
pretend that a major lifestyle does not
exist and does not have an effect on a
society. It drives endless debate and
has changed the course of many leg
islative acts. For that culture to be
excluded completely from university
curriculums would prevent people
from being able to learn about a group
of people. Learning about different
lifestyles and cultures will not lead to
an embrace of that lifestyle. It would
simply allow them to become more
well-rounded, open-minded and
accepting individuals.
Saying gay and lesbian people are
vulgar and devoid of all morals just
shows ignorance and closed-minded
ness. They are just as good as anyone
that engages in straight relationships.
College Station is not representative
of the real world. We are living in a
homogenous environment where
everyone thinks and acts very similar
ly. When you move into real cities, with
an eclectic mix of people, you will see
that your opinion is not the same as
everyone else’s. If you want others to
be tolerant and accepting of you, you
need to learn to be tolerant and
accepting of others.
Erin Holt
Class of 2006
Homosexuality not
a conscious choice
Unfortunately, Ms. Arms, your argu
ment is way off base. Unwillingness to
accept and tolerate something differ
ent is one of the major problems on
our campus today. Insinuating that one
chooses homosexuality is ludicrous.
I have met many homosexuals dur
ing my time at Texas A&M. Not one of
them has said that if they could have
chosen between being a homosexual
and a heterosexual, they would have
chosen to be a homosexual. Who in
their right mind would choose to sub
ject themselves to the persecution that
people put them through? They have
adopted homosexuality so they would
n’t have to go through life living in a
closed minded, uncultured bubble
where nothing new, exciting, or differ
ent ever happens. That is the bubble
closed-minded individuals live in. I look
forward to the day when Texas A&M
can burst that bubble, and students on
this campus can get past small-mind
ed beliefs and look out into the world to
see that everyone and everything has
its own important place in our world.
Ryan Bednarz
Graduate Student
The Battalion encourages letters that share per
sonal experiences and reflections in remembrances
of the 9-11 attacks. The opinion editor reserves the
right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy.
Please submit your 250-word thoughts in person at
014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID.
Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed
McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845-
2647 E-mail: mailcall@thebattalion.net